After Action Report 2020 -- Social Justice Movement

The root of modern-day social justice movement and reform arguably resides within the religious tenets of Christianity and relies on an eventual consolidation into the secular (read footnote below)[1]. In the mid-19th, Father Luigi Taparelli of the Society of Jesus help set into motion the secularization of social justice. Two thoughts of philosophy underlie the social justice movement but are tweaked within American ethos of idealism. For instance, according to Mary Hallan FioRito of the Federalist Society it is broken into two canonical political ideals. On one hand, “Social Justice—every person must be treated equally in every circumstance without regard to the difference between the people themselves.”  While on the other hand, “Social Justice—a ‘just society’ that allows for the unique potential of each human being to be full achieved.”

As for social justice defined within modern times, it has multiple connotations depending on one’s political perspective.  Overall, political ideology is determined in how social justice is received, displayed, and dispersed. By received, it is meant to say, how a person or community adopts an idea. By displayed, it is meant to say, how a person or community uses those symbols, images, or tropes to communicate meaning. By dispersed it is meant to say the form in which the community or person transmits the messages to reinforce the interpretations or the ideas. Currently, the transmissions of the social justice movement are jumbled due to the electoral polarization. Both sides of the aisle believe in the ideal of social justice, but the interpretations of how social justice should be dispensed are on a spectrum.

A spectrum that has the electoral base jumbled because of attitudes that have been defined by the extremes of the political parties. For instance, the term social justice warrior (SJW) as depicted by the right side of the aisle is that of an anti-American socialist that puts down America. The right-side also sees the left dictating political correctness and equity through shaming of those that do not adhere to their definition of equality. The left side of the aisle depicts the social justice advocacy of conservatism as unrelenting, unfair, and unjust to those that need equitable access. Understandably, the electoral populace is confused by the nuance of the social justice movement defining itself. The middle spectrum depicts equitable justice for both potential and circumstance, while acknowledging that equality matters for the disenfranchised and forgotten class.

In a civil society the realization of equity will be for the betterment of the community. In the 2020 election cycle, the discussion of social justice had been mollified by the emotional criticism.   The death of George Floyd cracked open Pandora’s Box. The brutality displayed shifted the ground underneath the majority as the realization of being caught “on video” took hold.  In the days to follow, the consciousness of a planet recognized the troubles of the disenfranchised communities. The social justice advocates had found their martyr. Public protests ensued. Most of the protests were peaceful, but as night fell agitators and instigators filled the streets with chaos and disruption. The nightly news focused on the discontent and destruction of property, while the message of peaceful protest during the day was lost.  A message of equitable justice for the haves and the have nots transparency remained opaque in that the equality being sought lingered in the hands of the shrinking majority.

For instance, the 2020 election cycle set a boundary—and its edge was in video imagery of safety, certainty, and stability. The imagery of the protest on a continuous loop begged to differ and signage evinced with the proof of “Defund the Police” set an edginess that subverted nuanced discussions.  For many, “Defund the Police” was a quick messaging tool used by the extreme right and left to become the central tenet of congressional races but not necessarily the presidential. In the case of the presidency, the sheer loathing and perceived incompetence for the candidate-president Donald J. Trump provided enough incentive to vote the incumbent out.

The shrinking dominant caste co-opted the messaging of the mostly peaceful protest march. Black Lives Matter (BLM), a far-left leaning organization, took the incidents of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and Ahmaud Arbery as a warning to move the ball forward regarding police authority and abuse.  BLM overplayed their hand with their quixotic branding—"Defund the Police” to the American populace. The right side of the aisle saw the mantra of “Defund the Police” that bellowed from the social justice warriors, with images of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Elijah McClain being used as the symbols of instability and uncertainty towards the pragmatic swing voters. Meanwhile, the left side of the aisle saw the images of Floyd, Taylor, and McClain as a quest to form a “more perfect union” and find equitable justice to create stability, certainty, and safety.

The populace tied together Black Lives Matter organization disgruntlement with the protest for Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, and George Floyd.  The negative imagery of the protests codified the experience of the shrinking majority.  The use of propaganda to subvert the messaging of the social justice movement for equity was juxtaposed with “all lives matter” or “blue lives matter” slogans to counter BLM’s “defund the police.” This gave the shrinking majority a mantra for its polarization and a crowbar to the middle swing voters and women.[2]

The counter programming by conservatives took the biases that are ingrained within the social construct of American beliefs. 

In essence, the beliefs of swing voters and women may see the unfairness of social justice and police authority towards black Americans, other minorities, and other disenfranchised groups but not at the expense of their perceived security. The emotion of what if, and the visceral possibility of violence against their person, drives irrationality to vote opposite of their actual desired outcome and self-interests. The wish by these voters for optimistic displays is inescapable on the outside, but their interior is rife with fear and consumed in darkness.

Meanwhile, local communities, cities, and states took the opportunity to reassess the police policies. For instance, in June 2020 Colorado passed legislation that would hold accountable police officers. The  full law will take effect January 2023 and establish a reporting database for all officer conflicts and their outcomes (link).  Also, in June 2020 the Breonna Taylor’s Law was passed unanimously to ban no-knock warrants changing policy for the Louisville, Kentucky police. Minneapolis, Minnesota, the place of George Floyd’s death, discussed the possibilities of disbanding the police department in its entirety.  The social justice advocates looked for immediate changes following the recent minority deaths in the mainstream media.

Each death was treated differently as either martyrs or idols. The polarized electorate went into overtime to sustain their message of activism. The contempt across the aisles brought disrespect and political correctness, and in turn, stalled community discussions. Invariably, the social justice movement with all its hashtags (#sayhername, for instance) moments motivated the base of each party to engage in the 2020 election cycle. In addition, groups like Black Lives Matter (BLM) fostered stories that impart disenfranchised minorities through multiple media outlets, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and digital magazines.

The constant news coverage of daytime versus nighttime protests pushed the buttons of the electorate, leading to further polarization and arguments about community safety. If there’s a certitude in play for United States politics, Americans want the big three—certainty, safety, and security; and when any one of those are in play, the populace reacts to benefit the dominant caste messaging, stereotypes, and emotion. For the far-right, or the conservatives for that matter, the co-option of “Defund the Police” meant to play on the fears, disinformation, and stereotypes with dehumanization of the other to instill distrust in congressional candidates.

Fear played in the hands of the candidates, one promoted the “return to normalcy” and the other advocated for “law and order.”  The “law and order” candidate’s apparent hypocrisy after his impeachment just illustrated how toned deaf the soon to be ex-president was, but it also demonstrated his ability to code switch and send up dog-whistled  language in order to drive up the tension with Black Lives Matters and the movement and failed to seize an opportunity to bring unity.

Meanwhile, the candidate wanting “normalcy” used every opportunity to instill the fear of behavior by his opponent, to point towards the incompetence of his opponent regarding the pandemic of COVID-19. The vice-president, soon to be president, showed calmness, competence, and grandfatherly nurturing nature, in which he projected security, safety, and above all else stability.

Stability, security, and safety are the elements that all caste members, both dominant and disenfranchised alike can find unity. President Donald Trump’s erratic behavior left most of the American public feeling unsafe, insecure, and unstable—and with each passing day the turmoil of the pandemic, social justice marches, civic unrest, economic uncertainty, along with family instability set a course for desperation.  Nearly no one wants to feel these emotions.

Desperation-filled grievances clashed the castes against one another. The dominant caste wished to maintain their sense of normalcy and their entitlement. The disenfranchised wanted the ability to have access and opportunity not defined by perceptions of the dominant caste’s stereotypes, while not facing continued denial of access due to exclusion from the hierarchy.

The perception of the “other” is the weapon for the dominant caste, in that, the messaging can be choreographed to shape the emotions of the community, or the electorate, to maintain control or its power. For example, the bad messaging of “defund the police” played into the hands of the dominant caste members that wished to maintain power and corrupt access. In addition, the false perception of socialism and the idealism of capitalism worked the sentiment of the electorate—at least for the local representative for congress or senator.

Breaking down the argument even further the discrepancy of why the congressional and senate (GOP) candidates did better—is simply this— “not in my backyard”. The “nimbyism” is a price that delays practical change and raises the cost of taking accountable action. The dominant caste uses nimbyism as a method to maintain power—and generally seen as a rational act to maintain the illusion of “normalcy” and order. Instead of advocating for equitable justice for all, a thirty second sound bite of “defund the police” lived on the tongues of the media of both conservative and liberal outlets and thus ingrained the consciousness of the popular.

In the end, the message from the left and the right instilled counter measures of mutual assured destruction in which each part of the electorate felt the turmoil of the civil and social justice turmoil. Social justice movements are subject to the community and its willingness to confront inequities; and in turn, their willingness to face the consequences of those inequities. Social justice movements rely on emotions and its efficacy to make change. Unfortunately, in the era of heightened emotions and bitter partisanship the evolution of a civil society results inaction, inequity, and apathy.

In previous chapters,  the 2020 PostElection, the Primary, and Imperfect Human discussed repeatedly the shrinking dominant castes' wanting to maintain control. However,  the abnormality of the election cycle with the pandemic, the civil unrest, and the incompetency of a president led to extraordinary amount cultural disruption. Additionally, the 2020 election cycle dealt with forces that generated an unusual amount of  hyperpolarization: a charismatic narcissist--President Donald J. Trump that was only about his own self-interest revealed, and a country that was not any mood for civil evolution. 

Under normal circumstances the civil unrest may have been absorbed by the twenty-four hour news cycle, but with the current extraordinary events, it was too much. The precipice of change belonging to American politics has shifted into a new era of post modernity. In this 2020 Election post report has barely touched upon the many elements of the future both nuanced and broad stroked. Ultimately, the 2020 election is just the beginning of many more contentious elections ahead; and, how we, as a nation, navigate them will reveal whether the "grand experiment" succeeds or fails.